3 ms·

If the probability beats human error margin in regards to collateral damage, then sure. That was the sentiment in regards to Level 5 automaton driven vehicles.

If the probability beats human error margin in regards to collateral damage, then sure. That was the sentiment in regards to Level 5 automaton driven vehicles. I see no logical difference, only human sentiment ones.

joe_the_user 2y ago
The problem you have is there's no way to estimate probability in situations like warfare or similar chaotic environments.
- Jerrrrrrry 2y ago
  Sure you do, it's accumulated heuristics, no different than meteorology, or other macro-sims of chaotic systems. The difference is that human lives are intentioned for different fates; so the negative cognitive dissonance is going to persist consciously, then sub-consciously.
  - joe_the_user 2y ago
    it's accumulated heuristics, no different than meteorology Meteorology is based on physics, meteorology doesn't have a hostile agent attempt counter prediction attempts, meteorology doesn't involve a constantly changing technological landscape, meteorology has access to vast amounts data whereas data that's key to military decisions is generally scarce - you know the phrase "fog of war"? I mean, LLMs in fact, don't provide probabilities for their predictions and indeed the advance of deep learning has hinge "just predict, ignore all considerations of 'good statistics' (knowing probabilities, estimating bias)".
    - Jerrrrrrry 2y ago
      >Meteorology is based on physics, Good start. >meteorology doesn't have a hostile agent attempt counter prediction attempts All chaotic systems have second-order reinforcing feedback loops by "tautological" definition of what a feedback loop is and what a sufficiently-complex system is. >meteorology doesn't involve a constantly changing technological landscape, it does, it just has little incentive/motive/order to change, because knowing the probability of it going to rain vs. the cost of it changing the weather is so uneconomically comically juxtapositioned that technology wasn't advanced enough make any progress. All phones being 5G'd into the weather apparatus would give certainty, but the pressure to do that collectively is not there. >meteorology has access to vast amounts data whereas data that's key to military decisions is generally scarce - you know the phrase "fog of war"? "Fog of war" is how it is perceived from outside. Inside, it is those who have a monopoly on viol/power/surv that ultimately wins. and that is us.
      - parodysbird 2y ago
        Warfare is not a chaotic system. We don't think outcomes are highly sensitive to marginal tweaks in initial conditions of the model. Hostile actor aren't modelled as chaotic systems but as agents in some game theory model. None of these agents has a monopoly on violence or power or information, or else it wouldn't be warfare.
        Jerrrrrrry 2y ago
        That's exactly why the last "war" was World War 2. Since then, we have higher level ordered gentleman agreements that prevent it, as gentleman's agreements are actually more beneficial to the collective than absolute, codified ones, such as "war" and "congress" and "laws" and "special military operations..."
randcraw 2y ago
Presuming human and LLM error to be equivalent assumes that the risk of committing errors by an LLM has the same distribution that human errors do. But they don't. LLMs make thunderously insane errors in ways that no human would do -- like casually revealing top secret info that no human would do, or inventing nonsense that no human would. Until we can get LLMs to fail more predictably, we have no business entrusting them to any sensitive data. And that applies to their use in non-military spaces like medicine and sensitive personal data of all kinds. Rushing to hand LLMs the keys to the kingdom is the exact opposite of intelligent.
- Jerrrrrrry 2y ago
  100% agree. The LLM's have a specific use purpose in an amalgamation of architecture that we will find will likely converge on something akin to a brain: modules that when collectively used, give immediate rise to much-appreciated conscientiousness, amongst other illusions. Limiting these models before they can themselves give emergence to give further emergence to enable negative externalizes is the job. LLM's have the "uncanny" property of approximating, whether it be "illusory ", and whether that illusion is deceitful, or impossible to delineate, and whether those who job it is have reason to lie, is all part of the fukin fun. sic hunt dei!

joe_the_user 2y ago

The problem you have is there's no way to estimate probability in situations like warfare or similar chaotic environments.

Jerrrrrrry 2y ago
Sure you do, it's accumulated heuristics, no different than meteorology, or other macro-sims of chaotic systems. The difference is that human lives are intentioned for different fates; so the negative cognitive dissonance is going to persist consciously, then sub-consciously.
- joe_the_user 2y ago
  it's accumulated heuristics, no different than meteorology Meteorology is based on physics, meteorology doesn't have a hostile agent attempt counter prediction attempts, meteorology doesn't involve a constantly changing technological landscape, meteorology has access to vast amounts data whereas data that's key to military decisions is generally scarce - you know the phrase "fog of war"? I mean, LLMs in fact, don't provide probabilities for their predictions and indeed the advance of deep learning has hinge "just predict, ignore all considerations of 'good statistics' (knowing probabilities, estimating bias)".
  - Jerrrrrrry 2y ago
    >Meteorology is based on physics, Good start. >meteorology doesn't have a hostile agent attempt counter prediction attempts All chaotic systems have second-order reinforcing feedback loops by "tautological" definition of what a feedback loop is and what a sufficiently-complex system is. >meteorology doesn't involve a constantly changing technological landscape, it does, it just has little incentive/motive/order to change, because knowing the probability of it going to rain vs. the cost of it changing the weather is so uneconomically comically juxtapositioned that technology wasn't advanced enough make any progress. All phones being 5G'd into the weather apparatus would give certainty, but the pressure to do that collectively is not there. >meteorology has access to vast amounts data whereas data that's key to military decisions is generally scarce - you know the phrase "fog of war"? "Fog of war" is how it is perceived from outside. Inside, it is those who have a monopoly on viol/power/surv that ultimately wins. and that is us.
    - parodysbird 2y ago
      Warfare is not a chaotic system. We don't think outcomes are highly sensitive to marginal tweaks in initial conditions of the model. Hostile actor aren't modelled as chaotic systems but as agents in some game theory model. None of these agents has a monopoly on violence or power or information, or else it wouldn't be warfare.
      - Jerrrrrrry 2y ago
        That's exactly why the last "war" was World War 2. Since then, we have higher level ordered gentleman agreements that prevent it, as gentleman's agreements are actually more beneficial to the collective than absolute, codified ones, such as "war" and "congress" and "laws" and "special military operations..."

randcraw 2y ago

Presuming human and LLM error to be equivalent assumes that the risk of committing errors by an LLM has the same distribution that human errors do. But they don't. LLMs make thunderously insane errors in ways that no human would do -- like casually revealing top secret info that no human would do, or inventing nonsense that no human would. Until we can get LLMs to fail more predictably, we have no business entrusting them to any sensitive data. And that applies to their use in non-military spaces like medicine and sensitive personal data of all kinds. Rushing to hand LLMs the keys to the kingdom is the exact opposite of intelligent.

Jerrrrrrry 2y ago
100% agree. The LLM's have a specific use purpose in an amalgamation of architecture that we will find will likely converge on something akin to a brain: modules that when collectively used, give immediate rise to much-appreciated conscientiousness, amongst other illusions. Limiting these models before they can themselves give emergence to give further emergence to enable negative externalizes is the job. LLM's have the "uncanny" property of approximating, whether it be "illusory ", and whether that illusion is deceitful, or impossible to delineate, and whether those who job it is have reason to lie, is all part of the fukin fun. sic hunt dei!